Lhe Hon'ble Supreme Court in ICICI Bank Ltd vs Prakash Kaur's case (l suprer) and ICICI Bank Vs.

Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent No.3 in attempting to recover amounts from the petitioner in an arbitrary, illegal, and high-handed manner without following the due process of iaw and in blatant violation.of the Reserve Bank of lndia Circular dated 12.O8.2022 bearing No. RBlnO22-231 1 08, DOR. ORG. REC.65121 .O 4.1 581 2022-23, and f urther declari n g the inaction of respondent No. 2 in enforcing the said Circular as unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, '19, and 21 of the Constitution of lndia, and consequently direct the respondent authorities to refrain from undertaking any coercive or unlaMul recovery measures against the petitioner and to strictly comply with the due process of law and the aforesaid Circular in all recovery proceedings, and further restrain respondent No. 3, their agents, recovery agents, executives, managers, or any person acting on their behalf flom engaging in any acts of intimidation, harassment, humiliation, or intrusion into the privacy of the petitioner or his family members, referee: or friends, including persistent or anonymous calls, threatening messages, or ,hysical visits to the petitioner's premises, and fu(her direct respondent No. 2 to -.nforce the said RBI Circular in letter and spirit and to initiate appropriate and s r ngent action against the errant officials of respondent No- 3 for violating lega rorms, and pending disposal of the writ petition, direct the respondent No. 3 tot to resort to any coercive measures against the petitioner except through lrMul means and in strict adherence to the Circular dated 12.O8.2022. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT THAKUR MANASVI/|N| StNC H, REp. By SRI. BONTHU LOKESH PHANII\ I ,RA REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI ANGOTHU NEHRU SC FOR CENTRAL GOV] Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: -- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 25675 of 2o25 ORDER: Heard Smt Thakur Manaswini Singh, learned counsel representing Sri Bonthu Lokesh phanindra Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Angothu Nehru, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government for respondent No.1. perused the record.

2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.p.No.S2OO of 2024, dated 25.O4.2024 and. therefore, the same order may be passed in this writ petition as well. The operative portion of the said order reads as under: I I "8. [.'or the aforcsaid rcasons and as the procedure adopted by the respondent Nos.4 Lo T for recovery of loan amount from the petitioner, amcunts to violation of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 2 1 of the Constitution of India, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents, to cnsure that the agents engaged by them for recovery of the loan amounts, shall strict\r follow the guidelines and instructions issued by the Reserve Bank of India and also the judgments of Lhe Hon'ble Supreme Court in ICICI Bank Ltd Vs. Prakash Kaur's case (l suprer) and ICICI Bank Vs. Shanti Devi Sharma's case (2 supra). 9. With the abovc said direction, the writ petition is disposed of." Z -l

3. Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute tht submissions of i learned counsel for t he petitioner.

4. In terms of the order passed by this Court irL W.P.No.52O0 of 2024, dated 25.04.2024, and for the reasons a1ike, t-ris u'rit petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities 'o s<;rupulously follow the guidelines/instructions in the RBI Circular dated

12.O8.2022, and aiso the judgments of Hon'ble Srt rreme Court in ICICI Bank Ltd Vs. Prakash Kaur and othersl antl ICICI Bank Vs' Shanti Devi Sharma and others2. Pencling miscellaneous applications, if anr, shall stand ,,rxtJ$:mH / ,ffRUE COPY// SECTION OFFTCER closed ' *rue*ffi' 1 ffiff$mffifftffi+ffifilt#?' fi,ong *itn a copv of order dated 25042ozlpassed i wp No 5200/2024) CHR ,1zooz1 zttczrr : (200s1 7 scc 532 F *P w HIGH COURT DATED:1210912025 \ ORDER W.P.No.25675 of 2025 .1 ., 1 .', ': 0l mt:C DTSPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \\ THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.S2OO of 2o.24 ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of tl'e Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, seeking the following reliel ".. .. to issue Writ, Ord.er or Direction more particularlg one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus: a) Declaring the qction of the respondent Nos.4 to 7 in high hand_edlg, arbitrailV and illegatlg trying to recouer the amounts from the petitioner bA not folLowtng Arq)lar doted 12.08 2022 uicle RBU2O22 23/ 1O8, DOR.ORG.REC.65/ 21.O4.158/ 2022-23 issued by the Respondent No.2 or ang due process of law and tLE inaction of the Respondent No.2 to legitimatelg prctect the interest of the petitioner bg dutg enforcing Ciranlar dated 12.08.2022 ad.e RBI/ 2022-23/ 108, DOR.ORG.REC.65/ 21-O4.158/2022 23 as illegat, arbitrary and unconstitutional Jor uiolating Atttcle 14, 19 and 21 of the Constltution of India, 1950; b) Direct Respondent Nos.4 to 7 to follolu Cir.wlar dated 12.O8.2O22 uide RBI/2022-23/ 1O8, DOR.ORG.REC.65/ 21.O4.158/ 202223 issued bA Respondent No.2, 4 Arect the Respondent No.2 to duly enforce the Circular Qated, 12.O8.2O22 uide RB 1/ 2022-23/ 108, DOR.ORG.REC.65/ 21.04.158/ 2022-23 to protect the interests of the petitroner against the Respondent No.4; d) Direqt the Respondent No.2 to take stingent action agaiast the etaat off.cial of Respondent Nos.4 to 7 in unlaufullg, illegally and arbitranlg taking to recouer the amounts from petitrcner without followng ang due process of laut;...-"

2. It is the case of petitioner that he availed personal loan from respondent Nos.4 to 7, who are the private bankers and financial institutions and utilised the amounts and he has been prompt in repaying the same without fail. It is further case of the petitioner that ever since he obtained loan, he has been 2 CVBR, J Wp_5200_2024 \ regularly paying the instalments in terms of th<r lgreement and due to losses in his business, he could not pay the instalments from September , 2023. It is also case of the petitioner that respondent Nos.4 to 7 without following the g5t.i lelines of RBI, has been sending the loan recovery agents to ris house and harassing to pay the amounts due as per th : calculation of respondents.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the -, spondents are entitled to recover loan amount in terms of the ll 1n agreements by following ttre procedure established under 1ev and they are not having an1' right to recover the ioan amount t y using force. 4 . Tl.re iss ues raised in this writ petition ar I no longer res integra as the Honble Supreme Court in ICICI .lank Ltd. vs. Prakash Kqur and others'r, while dealing rii h the similar issues where the banks engaged the services of recovery/ collection agents to recover the loans, observed as follows: " 16. Beforc Lue parl with this matter, u.te u.tish to mak? il cledr that LUe do not oppreciate the procedure adopted bg t e Bank in ' lzoou; z scc ztt - CVBR, ', Wp_52O0_2024 remouing the uehicle from rhepossession oJ the toit petitioner. Th.e practtce of hiring recouery agents, who qre musclemen, is deprecated and needs to be discouraged. The Bank shoutd resort to procedure recognised bA lau to fake possession of uehicles in cases where the borouter mag haue committed defautt in paament of the instalments instead of taking resort to strong-arm tactics. "

5. Aggressive recovery tactics adopted by the agents of Banks/ Finalcial Institutions lead to the landmark judgment in ICICI Brrnk us, Shanti Deti Sho,nna and others2, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the Banks/Financial Institutions to strictly follow the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India.

6. In the above referred judgments, the Hontrle Supreme Court condemned the procedure adopted by the Banks/Financial Institutions in employing recovery agents who are acting as middlemen for securing possession of vehicles/ secured assets in cases where the borrower commits default. It was observed that Banks/Financial Institutions instead of taking recourse to follow the procedure recognized by law for securing the possession of vehicles/ secured assets in cases '1zooa1 z scc s:z 4 CVBR, J Wp_5200_2024 where the borrower commits default in repaymr: Lt of ioan/1oan accountisdeclaredasNPA,areresortingtostrrltg.armtactics. TheHonbleSupremeCourtdelineatedtheguid:inesissuedby theReserveBankoflndiatimeandagainontheairconductby .lenders, with reference to usage of services of 161;r v€rY agents. It alsostatedthatthebanksshouldberemindedcftheruleoflaw and strict itction must be taken by the RBI in c I ;e of breach of such guidelines. It is apt and appropriate to extract let:st guidelines 7. issued by the Rese n'e Bank of India on l2'O8'21) )2 with regard tooutsourcingofFinancialservices_Resllnsibiiitiesof regulated entities employing Recovery Agents, "r hich reads as foilows "RBI/ 2022-23/ 108 DOR.ORG. REC. 65/ 2 1.O4. 1 58/ 2O22-23 August 12, 2022 Maclamt Sir. Outsourcing of Financial Seruices - Respo'Ls bilities oJ regulated. entities employing Recouery Agents The Reserue Bank of India has from time to ti 7e aduised regulated entities (REs) that the ultimate responsibi' t!/ for their outsourced actiuities uests Luith them and theg at, therefore, 5 CVBR, J Wp-5200-2024 responsible for the octions of their seruice prouiders including Recouery Agents (hereafier rekrred to as 'agents')' 2. It h(rs been obserued thc.t the agents employed by REs haue instructions goueming the been deuioting from the ertant outsourcing of financial seruices ln uiettt of concerns artsing from the actiuities of these agents' it is ad|lrsed that the RE-s shall stictlA ensure thrtt theg or their agents do not resott to intimidation or horassment of any kind' either uerbal or phgsicat' against ang person in their debt collection efforts' including acts intendedtohumiliatepubticlaorintnld'euponthepiuacuofthe debtors' famitg members' referees and fnends' sending inoppropiate messcges either on mobile or through social media' mrrking threatening and/ or cinonymous calls' persistently 1 calling the bortouter and.,/ or calltng the borrouter before 8:O0 a m' and after 7:0O p.m. Jor recouery of ouerdue loans' making folse and misleading re?r ese ntdtions, etc' The instructlons contained' in para 2 aboue shalL 3. supplement and' be read in conjunction tDtth the eisting guidelines/ directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India' as amendecl from time to time' including those tabutated in Annex' 4. senouslg Any uiolotion in this regard by REs usill be uieu'ted This circular shall apptg to the follouing REs: ApPlicabilitg 5. @) ALI Commercia[ Banks (inctuding Local Area Banks' Regtonal Rural Banks, and Smr l Finance Banks) excluding Pagments Banks; b) All AU India Financial Institutions (uiz Eim Bank' NABARD' NHB, SIDBI, and NaBFID); @) Att Non-Banking Financial Companies including Housing Finance ComPan{es; 6 CV8R,I Wp _52Oo_2024 (d) AU Pnmary (Jrbon) Co oPerotiue Bo'nk's, State t'o-operatiue Banks, arrcL Distnct Central Co-operatiue Banks; ontl (e) All Asu't Reconslruction Companies' 6. This arctiar shqll not aPplA to microf'nance k r ns couered under 'Master Direction - Reserue Bank of Indk, (Requlatoru Frametuork for Morch 14. 2022. Microfinance Loans) Drectio ns, - 22' Yours faithfullg, (Sunil T. S. Nair) Chief Ganeral Managcr"

8. For the aforesaid reasons and as the pro': dure adopted by the respondent Nos.4 to 7 for recovery of loar amount from the petitioner, amoun[s to violation of the rig I .s guaranteed under Articlcs 14 and 21 of the Constitution of In [ia, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents, o ensure that 'the agents engaged by them for recovery of the can amounts' shall strictly fo11ow the guidetines and instrucli )ns issued by the Reserve Bank of India and also the juc 1 ments of the Ltd. as. Prakash Hon'ble Strpreme Court in ICICI Bank Kaur2s case (1 supra) arld ICICI Brrnk as. Sho,nti Deti Sharma's case (2 suPra) 7 CVBR, J w p _52OO_2024 9 With the above direction, this Writ petition is disposed of There shall be no order as to costs

10. As a sequel thereto, miscelianeous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

25.O4.2024 c.v. BHASKAR REDDY, J